Let's Make a Deal: The Trade Thread

[burgold]

Last year showed we can be contenders which puts us in this weird place where we have to simultaneously rebuild for the future and think about how to win now.

In a normal situation, you would have hoped we would have doubled our win count and ended on an uptrend. If that were the case, we'd all be feeling cautiously optimistic and talking about a three-year rebuild because Rivera left this team so barren. Instead, we're still talking about the Rivera talent deficit, but also wanting to manage this playoff window we find ourselves in. We are contenders and we are a team that needs to rebuild its core.

I think that's why trades frustrate some of us and relying on so many one-year deals frustrate us. We want the draft picks so that we can build a long-term winner and have great depth, but we also want to not to take a major step backwards.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Last year showed we can be contenders which puts us in this weird place where we have to simultaneously rebuild for the future and think about how to win now.

In a normal situation, you would have hoped we would have doubled our win count and ended on an uptrend. If that were the case, we'd all be feeling cautiously optimistic and talking about a three-year rebuild because Rivera left this team so barren. Instead, we're still talking about the Rivera talent deficit, but also wanting to manage this playoff window we find ourselves in. We are contenders and we are a team that needs to rebuild its core.

I think that's why trades frustrate some of us and relying on so many one-year deals frustrate us. We want the draft picks so that we can build a long-term winner and have great depth, but we also want to not to take a major step backwards.

Yes this seems to be the line they are playing with. I think they are putting themselves into a position to draft BPA, which is a good way to rebuild a base that has been stripped bare. If you start reaching in the draft, your ability to build a long-term contender is very limited.

1-year contracts, while horrible for continuity and building a consistent winner, give you the ability to draft people who can function as replacements when ready. If you can draft BPA guys and have them steadily replace your shorter-term FA contracts, eventually you may reach an equilibrium where you are relying more and more on the draft and less and less on FA.

I think it's a very fine line they are balancing due to exactly what you describe, but honestly I think AP is managing it quite well. The strategy of who they target appears to be driven by the coaches, which is as it should be. We will see how it all plays out!

 

[burgold]

The one-year contract is a triple edged sword.

Edge #1 (good) You're probably getting a vet who has proven themselves in the NFL and is trying to show the league they are worth more than the league is offering them. If the player proves to be a hit that's great. If they prove to be a bust in your system then you aren't saddled with them.
Edge #2 (bad) One year contracts really require good coaches because you have very limited time to get the players up to speed and rework the scheme to maximize what they do best. If you don't have a good position coach then the learning curve even with a savvy player is going to be a problem. It may take that one-year player a third or half of a year to really get in a groove.
Edge #3 (good/bad) One-year players can be re-signed (see Ertz and Wagner) so continuity is possible, but they also can seek greener pastures elsewhere which can lead to team regression.
(There are additional edges to consider)

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

The one-year contract is a triple edged sword.

Edge #1 (good) You're probably getting a vet who has proven themselves in the NFL and is trying to show the league they are worth more than the league is offering them. If the player proves to be a hit that's great. If they prove to be a bust in your system then you aren't saddled with them.
Edge #2 (bad) One year contracts really require good coaches because you have very limited time to get the players up to speed and rework the scheme to maximize what they do best. If you don't have a good position coach then the learning curve even with a savvy player is going to be a problem. It may take that one-year player a third or half of a year to really get in a groove.
Edge #3 (good/bad) One-year players can be re-signed (see Ertz and Wagner) so continuity is possible, but they also can seek greener pastures elsewhere which can lead to team regression.
(There are additional edges to consider)

I now need to find a triple edged sword.

 

[burgold]

They do make 'em.

 

[Boone]

Ok, but a first round draft pick can tear their ACL on the 3rd play of the season also.

Here's the way I look at injuries: if a player has a history of injuries, the chances are they will get injured again, as injuries tend to compound themselves. If they don't have a history of injuries, then you just assume they'll be fine and subject to the same random quality of injuries as anybody in the NFL.

This is why I wouldn't sign guys who have a history of injuries to large, long contracts. Which, we haven't. So, I'm good with that part of it anyway.

And even going that far is a bit of a stretch. Some injuries tend to recur, but many do not. Groin and hamstring pulls, high ankle sprains, concussions, pectoral injuries, achilles injuries - we've seen these types of injuries can be 'chronic'. They are either very difficult to fully heal (as with an achilles repair), or a player may be prone to them due to body type, style of play, workout tendencies, etc.. But there are numerous other injuries where there is no statistical likelihood of recurrence. Bone breaks heal, often stronger than the original bone. ligament repairs are so well done nowadays, your ACL may be stronger post-surgery than it was before the tear.

I'm not even 100% sure that age is as big a contributing factor to injuries as fans think it is. I'm guessing the biggest issue with signing older players isn't that they are more likely to get hurt than younger players, but that their skills, speed, and strength begin to deteriorate over time.

Injury history is always something front offices are going to look at under a microscope. But I think it's a lot more complicated than 'the guy has an injury history'. Luck (of the bad variety) is probably as big a factor in NFL injuries as anything.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

And even going that far is a bit of a stretch. Some injuries tend to recur, but many do not. Groin and hamstring pulls, high ankle sprains, concussions, pectoral injuries, achilles injuries - we've seen these types of injuries can be 'chronic'. They are either very difficult to fully heal (as with an achilles repair), or a player may be prone to them due to body type, style of play, workout tendencies, etc.. But there are numerous other injuries where there is no statistical likelihood of recurrence. Bone breaks heal, often stronger than the original bone. ligament repairs are so well done nowadays, your ACL may be stronger post-surgery than it was before the tear.

I'm not even 100% sure that age is as big a contributing factor to injuries as fans think it is. I'm guessing the biggest issue with signing older players isn't that they are more likely to get hurt than younger players, but that their skills, speed, and strength begin to deteriorate over time.

Injury history is always something front offices are going to look at under a microscope. But I think it's a lot more complicated than 'the guy has an injury history'. Luck (of the bad variety) is probably as big a factor in NFL injuries as anything.

I don't have metrics proof of this, but one thing I've noticed is if a player suffers a catastrophic injury (ACL, Pectoral tear, Achilles, etc.) while that injury might not re-occur, the next year or so is really telling for injury projection. I'm no doctor, but as you're recovering from one of those types of injuries, it's natural to put extra strain on other parts of your body to compensate. And then there is a greater tendency to injure something else. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it seems to occur.

I agree, bone breaks and a few others would be generally excluded. I also think if a player has an injury , recovers, and then is pretty much injury free for a year, you can basically consider that problem them past them. And if they get hurt again, it's probably something else entirely.

But to go back to the original point, I don't think you factor in possible injuries when you're signing guys UNLESS they have a long series of injuries and/or they are coming off of an injury. This is why the Lattimore trade "scared" me a bit. Good player, but he was recovering from an injury which tends to reoccur. Will it? Dunno. Generally speaking, that's the type of injury I would stay away from. But the cost wasn't that high and it's probably worth the risk. But that one is a risk.

Tunsil is less of a risk.

I don't think Deebo is an injury risk any more than a normal physical WR. And for a 5th, it's really not a risk at all.

 

[Boone]

But to go back to the original point, I don't think you factor in possible injuries when you're signing guys UNLESS they have a long series of injuries and/or they are coming off of an injury. This is why the Lattimore trade "scared" me a bit. Good player, but he was recovering from an injury which tends to reoccur. Will it? Dunno. Generally speaking, that's the type of injury I would stay away from. But the cost wasn't that high and it's probably worth the risk. But that one is a risk.

Tunsil is less of a risk.

I don't think Deebo is an injury risk any more than a normal physical WR. And for a 5th, it's really not a risk at all.

I think they look at it on a detailed individual basis. Deebo is a physical beast. I know folks talk about his 'weight' a lot, but carrying more weight probably helps him be able to withstand the punishment with his highly physical playing style. I agree it is more of a concern for Lattimore, and that has more to do with the position he plays than anything. A CB, with ANY issue (whether it's not fully trusting a hammy, or some other minor injury issue) is going to be susceptible and potentially exploited. I think that's exactly what we saw with Lattimore last year.

It's just the nature of the position - incredibly demanding with the margin between success and failure just inches on any given play. So I would be a lot more concerned about injury history at that position than maybe an OL guy.

 

[skinsinparadise]

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Question: does anybody know of a site which tracks draft picks by year and if they are still in the league, and maybe even their "status?" (ie: starter, backup, practice squad)

It would be really fascinating to look back 3 years at the draft and see how many players in each round are still around.

Just some basic math:

There are 257 players who will be picked in this year's draft.

There are 1,696 players on active rosters (53 players for 32 teams.)

If you assume most of the players in the draft make their active roster, that means ~15% of the total NFL players turn over every year.

That's a lot. Some are due to retirement, a lot is due to the fact the guys don't work out, their replacement is drafted within 3 years.

I think it would be fascinating to look at trades through that lens. (I'm making up these numbers) If the average 5th round pick lasts 2.78 years and only 15% are starters, then a 5th for a starting WR for 2 or 3 years is better value than you might have gotten by just picking the spot.

I'm sure somebody has done this, I don't know if it's readily available.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

If they pull this off, that's going to be extremely out of character.

I also wonder whether they're going to ask Burrow, Chase, Higgins and Hendrickson to play both ways...

One other thing: if they do this, I'm not entirely sure how they can really improve a REALLY bad defense. That's A LOT of money tied up in 4 players if you include Burrow. They're going to have to draft exceptionally well and be really well coached on defense.

 

[Chris]

I have yet to get the Lattimore trade out of my system. Maybe it’s just gas.

As to the current injury discussion going on here…since his run of 4 Pro Bowls (2017-2021) Marshon has logged 7, 10, 9 and 9 games played per season. That, in my book, is called a trend. With 18.0 & 18.5m remaining on his contract for 2025 & 2026 and that he additionally cost a 3rd, 4th, and 6th round draft picks (with a return of a 5th) that is a highly questionable and expensive acquisition.

Maybe he returns to form and can overcome his consistent injury history but I wouldn’t bet on it. I saw the trade likened to catching lightning in a bottle and I take no exception to that. My question is…is he the lightning or is he the bottle?

 

[Boone]

100%. And here's the thing, there's 'he's out injured' and then there is also 'he is coming back from injury'. In other words, in some of those seasons (including last year) he may be on the field, but not 100%.

I haven't heard AP asked a very direct question such as 'given Lattimore's 50% availability over the past 4 seasons - how do you justify the cost of attaining him?'

Truth be told, AP has been so successful he rarely gets those tough questions. We are in full-blown 'benefit of the doubt' mode when it comes to his decisions and I think that even includes the sports media. He certainly has earned that to an extent. But the truth is, we know he is going to make some mistakes. And you are right Chris, Lattimore may prove to have been his first major misstep. I hope not, but it's definitely a possibility.

 

[skinsinparadise]

Even the best GMs as we know don't bat 1000. Parcells liked to say the best bat 500. I wouldn't go that far. myself But maybe 600. If you get 3-4 good players in a draft, its a great one, etc.

I think there is a shot Peters got Lattimore wrong. And I actually got no beef with the deal even with hindsight. They stumbled on a SB run out of nowhere. And CB was the biggest need. And that was the biggest player on the market. The logic and go for it attitude I embrace. Especially post Rivera who didn't have a go for it bone in his body. Ditto Bruce Allen. Cerrato had that risk taking attitude but he and his pal Dan were stupid and Peters is not stupid.

My issue with Peters if it goes south with Lattimore this season is him not releasing him -- not the trade. Part of the beauty of the deal is the guaranteed money was gone and you could discard him if it doesn't work.

Peters to me is either

A. letting his ego impinge on what's next with Lattimore by not wanting to admit defeat.

B. Genuinely believes that Lattimores struggles were about his injury and thinks they can get him right this season.

Even if he's wrong about Lattimore, I am hoping its B. He guessed it wrong. A to me is troubiling. Granted most GMs would do A because they want to be vindicated and don't like taking a loss. But one of the reasons why Roseman is the best in the business is he's generally willing to take a loss on a decision versus doubling down on it.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Even the best GMs as we know don't bat 1000. Parcells liked to say the best bat 500. I wouldn't go that far. myself But maybe 600. If you get 3-4 good players in a draft, its a great one, etc.

I think there is a shot Peters got Lattimore wrong. And I actually got no beef with the deal even with hindsight. They stumbled on a SB run out of nowhere. And CB was the biggest need. And that was the biggest player on the market. The logic and go for it attitude I embrace. Especially post Rivera who didn't have a go for it bone in his body. Ditto Bruce Allen. Cerrato had that risk taking attitude but he and his pal Dan were stupid and Peters is not stupid.

My issue with Peters if it goes south with Lattimore this season is him not releasing him -- not the trade. Part of the beauty of the deal is the guaranteed money was gone and you could discard him if it doesn't work.

Peters to me is either

A. letting his ego impinge on what's next with Lattimore by not wanting to admit defeat.

B. Genuinely believes that Lattimores struggles were about his injury and thinks they can get him right this season.

Even if he's wrong about Lattimore, I am hoping its B. He guessed it wrong. A to me is troubiling. Granted most GMs would do A because they want to be vindicated and don't like taking a loss. But one of the reasons why Roseman is the best in the business is he's generally willing to take a loss on a decision versus doubling down on it.

Well as for (B), I think as much as they have evidence of injury history there, they also have evidence of high value play there as well. With his full-season history, there is a mixed bag. I think seeing him up-close, however; I don't think they were thrilled with a few things. I think the late TB pulling him off Evans was purely their call, not his (of course), and that probably really stung. That rivalry is really serious, and Evans has been a bit of a jerk in it if you believe some things: https://www.bucsnation.com/2025/2/2...y-buccaneers-bucs-commanders-lattimore-saints

Regardless though; I think it is (B) with the caveat that the main drive of last year's trade was exactly what you said; to get the team better, even at high cost, for a potential Super Bowl run. The ramifications afterwards, yes, they have to deal with them and are prepared to do so.

 

[Chris]

I have no problem with addressing a major need when an unexpected run falls in your lap. I do have a problem with making an arguably expensive one on a currently injured player. The trade looked to me to be more about the future than the present due to the existing injury reality. Lattimore’s ability to find a way to reverse his now 4 season long inability to stay healthy will ultimately define the trade.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

I have no problem with addressing a major need when an unexpected run falls in your lap. I do have a problem with making an arguably expensive one on a currently injured player. The trade looked to me to be more about the future than the present due to the existing injury reality. Lattimore’s ability to find a way to reverse his now 4 season long inability to stay healthy will ultimately define the trade.

I really hope you are wrong (about it being about the future)! It would - in my opinion - show maybe really bad judgement to have done that trade at that time under those circumstances if it was purely (or even "more") about the future.

No, I think - and I haven't read any quotes that are definitive - but I strongly think that the trade was very specifically about last year. Future options were open which was a side benefit, but I think the supply at that time was very limited. AP was really backed into a corner because the team felt that if they got better on defense, they had a legitimate Super Bowl shot. That was the correct assertion, one of many, many correct assertions they made last year.

By the way, in my opinion, they also gauged that he would be ready for the playoffs. Another assertion that I think went how they expected more or less.

As for Lattimore, I do not think that trade worked out. Personally, I think we can already say that, because I think so much of it hinged on how he was able to perform last year. That's OK. It was a gamble with known risk/reward. They gave up as much as they did, because the market *at the time they needed that upgrade desperately* was what it was.

 

[Discobob]

So.... Cincinnati is working hard to convince the rest of the league that they are going to pay Hendrickson to retain leverage in trade talks?

 

[philibusters]

I have yet to get the Lattimore trade out of my system. Maybe it’s just gas.

As to the current injury discussion going on here…since his run of 4 Pro Bowls (2017-2021) Marshon has logged 7, 10, 9 and 9 games played per season. That, in my book, is called a trend. With 18.0 & 18.5m remaining on his contract for 2025 & 2026 and that he additionally cost a 3rd, 4th, and 6th round draft picks (with a return of a 5th) that is a highly questionable and expensive acquisition.

Maybe he returns to form and can overcome his consistent injury history but I wouldn’t bet on it. I saw the trade likened to catching lightning in a bottle and I take no exception to that. My question is…is he the lightning or is he the bottle?

At the time of the trade I liked the trade. Now, if I had the magical power to go back in time and tell Adam Peters what to do with hindsight, I would say don't make the trade. To me the main question is whether Lattimore is better than guys like Chavarious Ward, Carlton Davis, DJ Reed, Brandon Stephens, and so forth who were available in free agency this year at around the same price over the next two years. Right now I think I would take some of those guys over Lattimore and they could have been got without giving up the trade capital. That said, its early in the process. Lattimore could have a nice rebound year when he is a pro bowl caliber player and then the trade looks good.

 

[Canadian Hog]

There is a bit of chatter that Jacksonville would at the least listen to offers made regarding former #1 pick Travon Walker. If I am making a push to go after Trey Hendrickson, I am at least doing my homework on a fourth year player coming off 20 total sacks the last two years with room to grow and arguably his best football still ahead of him.